base_tablePreview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. Additionally, the description adds behavioral insights: it returns only the top 5 rows, and the 'persist' parameter materializes a volatile table. This goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences followed by a bullet list of arguments. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently uses space. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return: a data sample (top 5 rows) and inferred structure. It also covers the persist behavior. Minor omission: does not mention that the sample is limited to 5 rows in the first sentence (implied by 'top 5 rows'), but it's clear enough. Could mention edge cases like empty tables.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description also lists arguments with brief explanations, but adds minimal new information beyond the schema. The description serves as a summary, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns a data sample (top 5 rows) and inferred structure from a database table or view. The verb 'Returns' and resource are specific. While siblings exist, this tool's purpose is distinct as a quick preview tool, and the description makes that clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like base_readQuery or base_columnDescription. It implies usage for quick preview, but lacks direct guidance or exclusion criteria. Context signals show many siblings, so more explicit guidance would improve score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.